Week 1 Flashcards
Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964]
Facts:
C were Advertising agents.
They asked D for professional guidance whether Easipower ltd would have the sufficient funds to settle a contract with.
Easipower ltd had liquidated and C suffered a loss of £17.000.
Held:
Although there was negligent misstatement which caused loss on behalf of C, the D were not liable as they had left a written disclaimer “for private use and no responsibility from the bank”.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970]
Facts:
7 boys caused damage to the C’s yacht while they were trying to escape.
C raised action against the Home Office claiming that they had owed a duty of care to the C as they were meant to watch over the 7 borstal boys.
Held:
The Home Office indeed owed a DOC to the C and therefore won him the case.
Anns v Merton [1978]
Facts:
Council approved the building plans for a block of flats.
C commenced proceedings against the council alleging negligence in failing to inspect that the foundations were built at the appropriate depth as shown on the plans as there were structural movements which led to walls cracking.
Held:
Public Health Act 1936, council had the power but not an obligation to inspect building work.
If any inspections were under taken and they weren’t exercised properly, then the council would be liable.
Actions weren’t statute-barred, as the cause of action happened while the building’s condition became obvious.
Nettleship v Weston [1971]
Facts:
C offered to give D driving lessons knowing that it was insured against risk of injury to a passenger.
D lost control of the car and it hit a lamppost. C sustained injuries including a broken kneecap.
C claimed that D was partly at fault as well as C was not in breach of duty which was to do her best.
If there was BOD both parties were equally to blame.
Held:
(1) - C checked his car insurance before giving D lessons meaning that he did not agree to take the risk of injury from the learner’s lack of skill and the learner could not use the defence that C was accepting the risk in order to block his claim.
(2) - The DOC owed by the learner driver would be the same as any regular driver no matter if the instructor knew the lack of skill the learner had and therefore if C was negligent, she has breached her duty and is liable for the damages.
(3) - Learner and Instructor were both controlling the car and therefore they would both be liable and the C should recover only half of the agreed damages.
Bolton v Stone [1951]
Facts:
C was hit by a cricket ball.
Ball flew over a seven foot fence.
Held:
Claim rejected because the HOL found out that this accident happened only 6 times in 30 years.
Although there was a chance of repeating, the chances are so low that a reasonable person would not take precautions to stop it from happening.
Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953]
Facts:
Heavy rainstorm caused the D’s factory to get flooded.
D had spread sawdust on the floor, mopped and placed warning signs around the workshop.
Held:
C did not establish that a reasonable employer would have shut down the factory.
C did not manage to prove that the floors and passages were not maintained in an efficient state, therefore the claim for BOD also failed.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951]
Facts:
C suffered eye injury after sparks from grinding metal flew into his only eye.
D was aware that the employer had only one eye.
Held:
Although the chances of the injury was low, the potential seriousness of the injury was extremely high as the C had only one eye and it would make him fully blind rather than blind in only one eye.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]
Facts:
C patient given electro-convulsive therapy.
C was not given relaxant drugs or any physical restraints.
C ended up fracturing his hip due to this.
Held:
Court decided there was no BOD as there was no consensus in the medical profession for them to use any relaxant drugs for the therapy or having to give any warnings to the patient about the procedure.
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
Facts:
C was at a cafe with her friend.
Her friend bought her a ginger float and after C drank it, she had found the remains of a snail inside the bottle.
After she found out she drunk the remains of a snail, she felt physically sick.
Held:
D was liable as they had owed a DOC to the C as it was reasonably foreseeable that if anything harmful gets inside the drink, it would lead to the C becoming ill.
Philips v William Whiteley Ltd [1938]
Facts:
C tried to get their ear pierced by D.
D had placed his instruments in a flame and washed his hands and disinfected the instrument with lysol.
C’s pierced ear became infected.
Held:
Jeweller is not bound to take the same precautions as a surgeon would take, and even so D had taken all reasonable precautions.
C did not manage to prove that the infection entered the ear at the time when D pierced it.
Caparo v Dickman [1990]
Facts:
C were relying on the accounts and reports that were produced by D to acquire a new company which led to loss for C.
D claimed that there wasn’t enough proximity between the C and D in order to owe a DOC.
Held:
The D did not owe a duty of care as in order for them to owe a DOC there needs to be: Sufficient degree of proximity in the relationship between the parties; the knowledge that this would be shared to the shareholder/investor; the shareholder would place reliance on the report.
In order for this to work, it would have to be a company that is specifically creating the reports and accounts on the behalf of the C, rather than a large group of people.
Reeves v Commissioner of Police [2000]
Facts:
Inmate was under suicide watch.
Inmate ended up killing themselves and their family ended up suing the police for breaching their duty of care towards the inmate.
Police stated they did not owe a duty to act to save the inmate.
Held:
HOL disagreed and mentioned they have a duty to assess risk to inmates, including suicide risks as they have a high degree of control over the arrestees.
